1962 GT Hawk PERIOD ROAD TEST!

[Stude Shoo-wop!]

Well everyone, I managed to find something rather interesting out there. It is a magazine article of the Gran Turismo Hawk done by a group known as "CarLife". I don't know if this entity still exists but I find this article to be a well-rounded assessment as someone who actually owns this car. That's including the most serious complaint of the brakes, that when set to factory specs, had the same stopping properties as mozzarella cheese!

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990403963393/1962-05_CL_1962_Studebaker_Gran_Turisimo_Hawk_Test_1-4.pdf

On another note, those photographs - with that special positive/negative ratio only old magazines seem to have - are lovely. They do the car full justice!

[JoeHall]

Looking at 62GT's performance data is interesting. With 4-speed, 3.73 rear end, and 225 HP motor setup it did OK, but just OK: 75 MPH at 18.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile; 0 to 100 in 38 seconds; 103 MPH on top end.

As for gearing, the 3.73 propelled the car at 21.4 MPH per 1000 RPM, and the motor spun 2810 RPM at 60 MPH. With that gearing, the 289 woulda been spinning about 4683 RPM when at top end, 103 MPH.

So it would seem the stock 289, even with 225 power package, 4-speed and 3.73 rear gears, was a real dog, when compared to an UltraMatic equipped 56J. If I recall, it turned around 83 MPH, in about 17.5 seconds, and had a top speed of around 130.

I love my 62GT, but notice every time I get into the 56J, after a few weeks/months in the GT, it feels like I am in a dragster. LOL

Check out those hub caps !

[StudeRich]

I wonder if the 105 Sq. Inches of Braking on the Optional H.D. Brakes they mentioned is just the Police, Bonded Linings vs Std. Riveted?

There is no way to get it from 183 Sq. inches to 105 by using larger Shoes as they would not fit the Backing Plates and Drums.

They never mentioned the fact that the Test Car had Power Brakes! THAT is likely where the braking issue was, Low Vacuum!

Maybe they confused the 22 Sq. Inch increase with the 6 Cyl. Brake H.D. V8 Upgrade for Taxi, Police, not available on V8's..

[studegary]

"Car Life" was the name of one of the many car magazines at that time. I have some around here. I doubt that they have existed in some time.

[Dwain G.]

Car Life lived from 1954 to 1970 and was then absorbed by Motor Trend.
There are two Brooklands Books paper backs called Studebaker Gold Portfolio and Studebaker Ultimate Portfolio. The contents are reprinted road tests from car magazines from 1946 to 1966

[Skip Lackie]

Car Life was a very good car magazine, to which I subscribed for most of its existence. I still have all the issues that reviewed Studebakers, and remember well the one that reviewed the GT Hawk. As I recall (haven't read the article in decades) they were particularly impressed with the Hawk's complete dashboard of plain black/white gauges.

BTW, during the early years of SDC. TW often included reprints of articles from old car magazines. I believe the Car Life review of the 62 GT Hawk was reprinted some time in the late 1970s.

[black56hawk]

In its June 1961 issue, Motor Life magazine tested a 61 4-speed Hawk, 289 4-barrel with 3.08 gears. Ran 17.6 at 77mph, with a top speed of 120.

Quite a few years ago, I took a stock 1966 Barracuda slant six, with automatic trans and 2.94 gears, to the strip. Ran 18.20, can't remember the mph.

Kinda think 18.2 for a 225 horse 289 4-speed Hawk with 3.73 gears is pretty slow - at least a full second off. . . .

[acolds]

Car life one of the best magazines always gave more specs of the cars tested. I have quite a few old ones that missed being gotten rid of when we cleaned up and got rid of old stuff. I now keep old stuff because its like me old.They did a road test of R4 which even included the building of car on assembly line.

[shifter4]

I have that magazine , and I've always doubted the performance results in this particular test .

The given " curb" weight is 3530 , while the " as tested " weight is 3835 .
305 lbs is a bunch , since F=MA , therefore A=F/M . Larger M=lower A if F remains the same .

Also on the rock hard 6.70x15's on the car , traction was probably in short supply . Skill enters in.....

Also the top speed is given as 103 mph at 5000 rpm . , while in post #2 above Joe hall indicates that
103 should have been at 4683 rpm, so.....?

Here are a couple of actual by me time slips in a '57 Silver Hawk 289 , 3 spd , 2 Bbl from long ago .
totally stock , but with bigger tires , so my 3.91 gear was probably near the 3.73 in this test , effectively .


60's Time Slips-II by Bill H, on Flickr

[StudeNewby]

Car Life was a very good car magazine, to which I subscribed for most of its existence. I still have all the issues that reviewed Studebakers, and remember well the one that reviewed the GT Hawk. As I recall (haven't read the article in decades) they were particularly impressed with the Hawk's complete dashboard of plain black/white gauges.

BTW, during the early years of SDC. TW often included reprints of articles from old car magazines. I believe the Car Life review of the 62 GT Hawk was reprinted some time in the late 1970s.

Skip, do you recall any magazines road testing Studebaker trucks? I would be very interested in reading their impressions of the Champ and others.

[Skip Lackie]

Skip, do you recall any magazines road testing Studebaker trucks? I would be very interested in reading their impressions of the Champ and others.

No I don't -- but I wasn't really interested in owning a truck at that time, so I wouldn't have found it memorable.

That said, I seem to recall that Motor Trend (?) used to print the same spec charts for every vehicle they tested, and those included a zero-to-top-speed graph that showed each shift point. They used that same chart for a test of a WWII-era Dodge Power Wagon military truck, whose top speed was ~55 mph. So the graph showed it eventually reaching the top speed, and then the speed line went horizontal. Zero-to-60 time was listed as infinity. The test included a remark that rather than traversing the land, the truck's ride made you feel like the the truck wasn't moving and rather was pulling the Earth toward it.

[Devan]

Read this article long ago in a softcover compilation of various Hawk road tests published, I believe, by Consumer Reports, of all people. Good Reading. All tests found Hawks of all different years to be very decent road vehicles. Reading it again here I found a statement that didn't register with me before and it may just be a misprint. It follows, "It looks pure Thunderbird to us. Somebody is apparently engaging in anticipation of the 1984 model!" What does this mean? 1984 (misprint & should be 1964)? And are they referring to the to be restyle 1964 T-bird? They knew what the 1964 Thunderbird was going to look like in 1962?